I too echo George and Steve's comments. From my own experience in
systems and information decision infrastructure design, the key in the
overall infrastructure is to be able to perform dynamic data gathering,
and that the infrastructure allows for scalable and extensible elements
such that it evolves with the environment at ease, and that it actually
can "learn" from the environment to perform its functionalities in the
most intelligent way. Such system is thus elastic, and can adapt to the
environment and specific needs. Eva (01)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (02)
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Steve Ray wrote: (03)
> I agree with George's important point, which also is illustrated in my own
> field of systems integration. Integrated systems also have a habit of not
> standing still. In the end, what is of lasting value is the ease with which
> one can achieve, or re-achieve, an integrated state. Integration is a
> process, not an end. So we should perhaps think of the ease with which we
> can assemble, or re-assemble, a quality ontology, often under shifting
> circumstances. We could look for tools that help in the construction
> process, that could also help ensure quality and consistency - Computer
> Aided Ontology Engineering (CAOE, unpronounceable acronym).
>
> - Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mphise-talk-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:mphise-talk-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:31 AM
> To: '[mphise-talk] '
> Subject: Re: [mphise-talk] the MPHISE Conference - Day-1 Panel-1 Briefing-4
> - preparation
>
> Hi all,
> Just to clarify a bit, it is important to note that Ontology serves an
> entirely valid purpose. In fact, static ontology is frequently an essential
> element in well structured transaction processing, say an airline
> reservation system or a medical record keeping system. In these instances,
> however, the transactions are clear-cut and change is relatively rare
> allowing the ontology to correlate diverse machine readable taxonomical
> terminology and attributes and perhaps even to reason axiomatically.
>
> A concern, however, is that a static ontology, much like the highly touted
> rigid RDBMS, is not always sufficient as a "cure-all", either practically or
> economically. It is straightforward to conceptualize instances in loose
> federations where ontology can be useful only if the ontology is as dynamic
> as the environment that it represents. The more organic the environment, the
> more dynamic the ontology is likely to be. As such, the ontology must evolve
> vs being created all at once. If it need be converted to a spot formalism to
> accommodate further machine processing, so be it, so long as it may be
> continually updated and manipulated in a such a format over time. But to
> suggest a singular static ontology will suffice over time in known complex
> adaptive environments is discounting the clear dynamics upon which such
> systems operate, particularly as change accumulates, or worse occasionally
> goes asymptotic, over time.
>
> To further complicate matters, the "interactive complexity "evident at the
> time of a disaster may often reflect a "coalition of the available" more
> than the anticipated "coalition of the willing". Albeit highly dynamic in
> its own right, the former may be planned to some degree against some loosely
> defined protocols. The later, however, is the reality, and its dynamics can
> never be fully known a-priori. This calls for extreme flexibility across the
> board if the response is to adapt to the prevailing circumstance.
>
> Thus, it is not the existence or automated use of ontology, but rather the
> means by which it is produced that may be the critical differentiator for
> its contextual utility.
> Regards,
> George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mphise-talk-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:mphise-talk-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Musen
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:01 PM
> To: [mphise-talk]
> Subject: Re: [mphise-talk] the MPHISE Conference - Day-1 Panel-1 Briefing-4
> - preparation
>
> On Mar 28, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Peter Yim wrote:
>> o suggestion: maybe everyone can send in a slide deck (or
>> two) they have used before that are relevant to the needs here
>> (7AK)
>
> Peter,
>
> Here are some slides from an invited talk I gave at the Public Health
> Information Network Workshop at the Annual Conference of the Council of
> State and Territorial Epidemiologists, June 2008. Feel free to slice and
> dice.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:mphise-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/mphise-talk/
> Community Wiki: http://cosine.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MphISE
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/community/project/mphise-talk/
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:mphise-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/mphise-talk/
> Community Wiki: http://cosine.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MphISE
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/community/project/mphise-talk/
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:mphise-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/mphise-talk/
Community Wiki: http://cosine.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MphISE
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/community/project/mphise-talk/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
|